Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1887-09-15
THE DEADLY DECISION.
Document That Men Who Talk Anarchy
May Read with Profit.

THE DEADLY DECISION.
A Document That Men Who Talk Anarchy
May Read with Profit.
The opinion of the supreme court states that
the case came before the court by writ of En-
ror to the criminal court of Cook county
The plaintiffs in error were tried for the muir
der of Matthias j. began, on May 4, 1851, in
| the city of Chicago, and on Aug. ~, 1856, the
jury found a verdict against them Here
follows astatement of the Haymarket tragedy,
including details of the throwing among the
policemen assembled on the square of a dyna-
mite bomb. The opinion then SAYS: at is I'M
disputed that the bomb was thrown, and that
it caused the death of Degan 1t is conceded
that no one of the defendants threw the bomb
with his own hands The plaintiffs in error
are charged with being accomplices before
the fact"
The court then proceeds to examine the
sixty nine counts in the Indictment Some
of the counts charge that the defendants, be-
ing present, aided, abetted and assisted in
the throwing of the bomb; others, that not
being present aiding, abetting or assisting
| they advised encouraged, aided and abetted
| that said defendants advised, encouraged,
aided and allotted one Rudolph Schuaubelt
in the preparation of the crime; others,
that they advised, encouraged, aided and
| abetted an unknown person in the perpetra-
ton thereof.
The Illinois statute which defines an ac-
cessory as be who stands by and aids and
abets, and which considers such accessory as
| a principal, and to be punished accordingly,
is quoted and then the opinion goes on to
state that If, therefore, the defendants ad
vised, encouraged, aided or abetted the kill
| ing of Degan they are as guilty as though
| they took his life with their own hands Ii
| any of them stood by and aided, abetted or
assisted in the throwing of the bomb, those
of them who did so are as guilty as though
| they threw it themselves
The questions which present themselves
are these: Did the defendants have com
mon purpose or design TO advise, encourage,
aid or abet the murder of the Policeman
| Did they combine together and with others
with Il view to carrying that purpose or de
| sign into effect2 Did they, or either, or any
| of them, do such act or make such declara-
tons i'll furtherance of the common purpos,
| or design, as did actually have the effect of
encouraging, aiding or abetting the crime in
question!
To solve these questions the court pro
ceeds to make a thorough examination of the
| evidence as presented in the criminal court
| in Chicago. The first part of the evidence
examined by the supreme court was that in
relation to the making of the bomb that
killed began, and it was ascertained that
A.
| viz: First, it was round, second, it was ex-
ploded by means of projecting fuse; third,
the shell of the bomb was of composite man
ufacture; fourth, the bomb had a small iron
nut. The evidence showed that bombs with
| these four characteristics were made by the
| defendant Louis Lingg at his residence in
! Chicago and that materials for bomb-mak-
| ing were found there after the Hay market ex-
plosion and the court therefore declares:
Nv Re think the jury were warranted iii be
| lieving from the evidence that the bomb
which killed began was one of the bombs
made by the defendant Linng.'
| Did Lining make the bomb which killed De
| ganf To answer this question the court ex-
haustively examines all the evidence which
was presented i'll relation to the organization
| known as the International Workinguien's
| association, or International Arheiter associa-
! ton, generally called the "int+rnatipnas Its
! platform of principles, as published in The
! Arhelier IeItung OF its orgaue-ltS our
poses, its membership in Chicago, are de-
scribed and general statement given of how
it proposed to effect what il called the social
| revolution"
| 1t is the opinion of the court that this or.
ganization was an unlawful conspiracy. and
| meant social revolution. The defendants
sought to Use tits organization to inspire
hatred among the workingmen OF the police
and militia; they made violent and incendi-
airy speeches. they had published in their
newspapers instructions for the making of
| bombs and dynamite The court quotes as
part AT its opinion copious extracts frum
| speeches by Spies, Fielden and Others of the
| defendants, and extracts from the Anarchist
newspapers. 1t also recites the evidence of
the purchase of pistols arr other arms by
sundry of the defendants, all of which evi
| dence shovel conspiracy as charged and
sonoludes: 1--WE think the jury were var
ranted In believing from the evidence that
the bomb which exploded at the Haymarket
was made by the defendant Lingg"
The question which next suggests itself,
say the court, is whether the bomb so made
was thrown at the Haymarket by member
OF said conspiracy, or by some one acting
under its direction and IN pursuance of its
designs To solve this problem the court
gives very careful and lengthy review of
the evidence relating to the disposition made
| Of the bombs manufactured by Tingg and
his assist ants, and to other pertinent matters.
The MAN nf Eurai tod Mt If
the Lehr and Nehr Verein on MAY 3, 1886,
and adopted in the form of resolution, Civ
ing instructions for tine throwing of bombs
if there should be conflict between the po-
| lice and the Anarch SIS, is described in detail
and commented upon, and all of the special
situations and events of the Haymarket con
fict are considered. After this review
the court says that it is apparent
that just such an attack was
made on the police in the Haymarket as was
| contemplated and arranged for beforehand
at the meetings of the "Internationals" and
kindred associations, in which the defendants
| took part, and that the bomb was thrown as
had been arranged 1t holds that the jury
were warranted i'll believing from this evil
dence that Louis Lining was a party to the
Haymarket conspiracy, and also that the jury
were justified in believing from the evidence
| that the man who threw the bomb was either
a member of the conspiracy or an agent EN-
| ployed by it.
| The fact that Spies wrote and had printed
| the Revenge" circular is mentioned and the
| turbulence of the crowd in the Haymarket
the incendiary references to capitalists in
general and to Jay Gould in particular are
dwelt upon as indicating the Interior objects
that Spies, Parsons, and their associates had
in view, and there are copious extracts from
the speeches delivered upon the memorable
occasion to prove that those responsible for
| the gathering had but one idea, and that K
| incite their hearers TO violence. 1ncendiarJ
utterances in the two Anarchist papers art
| quoted at length and the fact commented upor
that these were the organs OF the "lnterna
tionas," and that the members looked to thes'
papers for orders and directions.
The court holds that the evidence showing
that Spies and Schwab, either one or both o.
| them, gave the bomb that killed began int
the hand of the person who threw it wa
proven beyond peradventure by tue uncon
coBtradicted testimony Of the witness
Thompson, and that therefore they aided th'
chief participant in his murderous design.